Baptism of the Apostles

[Perry]

As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them.
— Apology ch. 61

That process seems to differ slightly from the modern "sinner's prayer". I thought “we praying and fasting with them” was specially touching.

[wwalkeriv]

Paidon wrote:

Indeed was he regenerated at all prior to his baptism? "He who believe AND is baptized shall be saved."

You left off the second half of the sentence (if you are quoting Mark 16:16). Which, in my opinion, changes the implication of the passage above.

";but he who does not BELIEVE will be condemned."

[KyleB]

If John The Baptist baptized them along with Jesus, then they would have been baptized into John's baptism (as Christ was), but that wouldn't be a post-regenerative believer's baptism. I suspect they were probably re-baptized as no doubt others who JTB had baptized were. I wonder by whom.... hmmm (maybe Jesus?) Wouldnt' that be cool!

Agreed on every point. (Acts 19:1-7) John's baptism wouldn't have counted, and it seems that they couldn't have gone around baptizing each other (original anabaptist style) without at least one of them having been baptized first by Jesus Himself......?

[Perry]

without at least one of them having been baptized first by Jesus Himself......?

I'm not so sure that Jesus personally physically baptized any of them. I think He probably avoided that so that none of the apostles could claim to have a superior baptism. This is pure speculation.

[jeremiah]

hello kyle,

in acts 19 it describes disciples who had never heard of the holy spirit. they didn't have all the information as it were. from this to then turn and say john's baptism was useless carte blanche seems hasty. andrew, however became a disciple of Christ in jesus' lifetime. for jesus to tell him it didn't count,or he didn't do it properly just seems a little uptight to me. maybe he did i don't know. by the way, i definitely see this as fun discussion points, not something i would go to the mat on

grace and peace...

[Homer]

it seems that they couldn't have gone around baptizing each other (original anabaptist style) without at least one of them having been baptized first by Jesus Himself......?

Why could they not baptize each other? The baptizer, contrary to what some like to think, is of little importance. What if a preacher is found to have been a charlaton, never a believer. Would all who were baptized under his "ministry" need to be rebaptized? I say no, baptism is a response to God (1 Peter 3:21); the baptizer is merely utilitarian.

[KyleB]

To Perry:

Maybe the 11 were all baptized by Jesus? If none of them were ever water baptized by Jesus, and they did it to each other, then the first person to get baptized would have been baptized by a person who themselves had not yet been baptized...it makes for kind of a funny logical loop, at least in my mind.

To Jeremiah:

This is deadly serious, to the mat with you! Just kidding. I guess I don't see whether or not one's discipleship began during the physical lifetime of Jesus to be the thing that matters with reference to one's baptism. I'm sure Andrew got wet numerous times during his life for a variety of reasons, and the time that he got wet with John the Baptist was not in order to be baptized into Christ. I don't see it as Jesus being uptight or that Andrew didn't "do it properly", but rather that Andrew didn't "do it at all" when he was baptized by John. It isn't the splooshing of water that means something, but rather the purpose behind it.

[KyleB]

Why could they not baptize each other? The baptizer, contrary to what some like to think, is of little importance. What if a preacher is found to have been a charlaton, never a believer. Would all who were baptized under his "ministry" need to be rebaptized? I say no, baptism is a response to God (1 Peter 3:21); the baptizer is merely utilitarian.

I concede this point to you sir, I agree a person would not need to be rebaptized in this circumstance.

[Perry]

Would all who were baptized under his "ministry" need to be rebaptized? I say no, baptism is a response to God (1 Peter 3:21);

I agree. The same, I think, can be said for marriage. It's God who does the joining, not the minister. (Matt. 19:6, Mark 10:9)

[Perry]

To Perry:
If none of them were ever water baptized by Jesus, and they did it to each other, then the first person to get baptized would have been baptized by a person who themselves had not yet been baptized...it makes for kind of a funny logical loop, at least in my mind.

I see what you're saying. Actually, I've think that they were probably baptized by John. I'm aware that some might suggest that Acts 19:1-6 implies that John's baptism was insufficient... but, it seems to me, that the incident in Acts 19 is more about reception of the Holy Spirit than about baptism. Since the disciples didn't receive the Holy Spirit until Acts 2, that means that, even if they were baptized by Jesus, it was insufficient for reception of the Holy Spirit (which seems almost irreverent to say). But, for some reason I don't understand, it was apparently impossible for the Holy Spirit to be around at the same time as Jesus (John 16:7).

In any case, the Holy Spirit didn't seem to come for anyone until Acts 2, which would have been well after anyone was baptized by Jesus or by John or anyone else.